 Thanks for being here. We're gonna have a discussion about extracting with purpose creating shared value in the oil, gas, and mining sectors, companies, and communities. This is a Chevron forum event. Our friends at Chevron, thanks Joanna for being here and thank you for all coming today. I think the concept of creating shared value has captured the imaginations of companies and other stakeholders. I think the room speaks for itself. I think it builds on a long tradition. It's certainly beyond corporate social responsibility. I think you'll hear definition of creating shared value from Dane Smith in a minute. You have everybody's bios in front of you, but this is a group of folks who participated in putting this important report together. I think it's important for us here in Washington to think about this in a couple of different contexts. One is that this is about the company is the protagonist. This is about companies and how companies see their role in society and what they bring to the table, not just their philanthropy or their social investment, but their standards, their procurement, their investment decisions. I think as the report talks about that oftentimes there are other partners and they're in an ecosystem of other partners. Oftentimes it's through multi-sector partnerships, but also in terms of working, especially with governments, whether it's local governments or state governments, but also with donor governments as well. For us here in Washington, we think about international development. The creating shared value lens is going to drive additional kinds of partnerships in the future. I think this is a very timely discussion. We'll hear from different panelists. I think you all know me well. I run a pretty tight ship in terms of speakers. I'm going to be running a timer to make sure that folks keep to their time that we've agreed to because I want to make sure that we have many knowledgeable people in this room. They've all agreed to abide by these ground rules as well. Very pleased to see so many folks. Without further ado, I'm going to turn the floor over to Dane Smith and we're just going to go just right down the row here. A little bit tight. Good morning, everybody. Thanks for joining us today. My name is Dane Smith. I'm a managing director with FSG, which is mission-driven consulting firm. Am I not on? Usually I'm loud enough so I don't need a microphone, so I hope you could hear what I had to say earlier. And now I need to lower my voice a little bit so I don't scare you from the room. It's important to keep in mind that the oil and gas and mining industries represent roughly 5% of the world GDP. We're talking about approximately $3.5 trillion in annual gross revenues. And if you look just at the mining industry, it employs about 3.7 million people across the globe. So something that's we're talking about in entities that are truly enormous here. And as you all know, many of their operations are present in very poor locations. Locations that are struggling with economic development. For many of these communities and countries, the oil and gas and mining industries represent one of their greatest opportunities to achieve economic growth and economic development. When these communities do not feel that they are capturing some of the benefits that are associated with the extractives industries, we see that they react rather poorly. And there's some data behind this. The ICMM has indicated that over the last 10 years, conflicts in the mining industry on the rise, they've risen by a factor of 10 over the last decade or so. If you look at the increase in arbitration cases between the oil and gas industry and local governments, those too have increased by a factor of 10 over the last decade. A lot of cost is involved. And certainly, we can all think of examples where the competitiveness and the viability of very prominent companies has been in some ways compromised or damaged by local conflict. Recognizing the challenge here, companies spend a lot of money trying to capture the elusive social license to operate. A lot of spending there. And they do this in a way that unfortunately, despite all the resources they're spending, they're not entirely successful. So in a report, a study done by the IFC actually in, I guess, it's 60 companies across five countries. This is a multi-year study. They discovered that there was actually no correlation between the amount of money the companies were spending in their communities and the relationship with the communities. So something's going wrong. Lots of money's being spent, but it's not having an impact. And CEOs are very conscious of this as well. Andrew Harding, who is not the CEO but heads for Rio Tinto, their iron ore business, in an interview for this study on extracting with purpose said, yes, we spend a lot of money, as do all mining companies, on short-term mitigation strategies, short-term risk mitigation strategies. But the bad news, the unfortunate news is that spending on short-term mitigation strategies doesn't work. It does not diminish the risk that we're facing. Something is going wrong. So with that in mind, a number of our partners, FSG's partners, including Chevron represented here, but also Shell, also Rio Tinto, also Newmont, and then along with other partners such as IFC, Harvard Kennedy School, they asked us to take a look at what's going on in shared value in extractives. What's happening and what's the potential there? And in this research, we interviewed over 170 people working with these companies, working in these sites. We visited a number of different locations. We reviewed over 200 documents issued by companies to see what's going on. And we discovered a few important things that are happening. First of all is that, yes, it's true that some companies are moving more toward a shared value opportunity. And I think at this point it's worth me mentioning a little bit about what the difference is between shared value and corporate social responsibility or corporate philanthropy. And I want to be careful as I'm talking about this. I'm not suggesting that CSR is not a good thing. I'm not suggesting that companies should stop spending money on corporate philanthropy because there are certainly some social issues that cannot be addressed through shared value. But when we think about shared value, this notion that companies can actually improve their business by helping to solve social problems, there are a couple of elements that traditional CSR does not have. The first of these is that there are more company resources, more financial resources available in shared value, especially at a time right now, like right now, where the prices of commodities are decreasing, where companies are resource strapped, if companies can find ways that they can improve their business, whether that means increasing their revenues or decreasing their costs or decreasing their risk in a meaningful and measurable way, then they are more likely to spend money on that in a sustained manner than they will their CSR efforts. The second thing that is different, and this is very important, is that when companies find opportunities to do shared value, that means to create change in a way that is actually in the interest, the business interests of the company, there's potential to have to craft a new kind of relationship with the communities where there's an actual alignment between what the company wants and what the community wants. And this is a very sharp contrast from the you win I lose mentality that emerges many times when communities feel that they need to barter or bargain with companies for spending on community activities and community development. So this opportunity for alignment is very important here. I'm going to give you a few examples of what's happening in shared value and Matt Lawner from Chevron is going to talk about some of the great things that they're doing in different parts of the world as well. But I want to talk about mention three different ways where we find that extractives companies are able to to create shared value. One is in reconceiving products or markets. And an idea, an example of this is when companies repurpose what they're doing around the use of water, the use of energy in their operations to actually find new products that they can sell. And Anglo American is doing this in an intriguing manner in South Africa. So in a community that has significant water shortages, 30 to 40 mega liters per day. And so problems with lack of available drinking water and at a place where the operating costs for a company are extremely high in terms of water treatment. Anglo American has been able to build a water reclamation facility. This is in South Africa where they're meeting 20% of the community's daily water requirements. But they're doing this and because they are selling this resource, they're doing so in a way that their reclamation costs are offset by a total of 60%. So very meaningful business value to the company. And it's working so well that they've actually been able to sell these services to BHP Billiton, another mining company that needs this. So here, Anglo American is finding an innovative way to take on and tackle the problem of water in and around their operations, but to do so in a way that makes business sense for them as well. A second area of opportunity is in redefining productivity in the value chain, that is the operations that a company has, whether it's its manufacturing area or in its logistics or in its supply. And you can see an interesting example of BHP doing this in Baku, Azerbaijan, where it opened up an enterprise center for SMEs. Over 1,000 local firms participated in the program. It increased jobs and skills and investments and companies have won contracts worth $335 million. So significant local economic impact, but it's not through philanthropy. It's not the company giving it away. They're doing this in a way that actually reduces their supply costs and improves the relationships with local business and develops specialized opportunities. Why don't we just stop there. We can go back for the Q&A and you can come back and fill some other items. Let me just close with one thing, Danny. So the big question that you all should be wondering is if the opportunities are out there, if there's so many opportunities out there and if you see examples of mining companies and oil and gas companies that are finding ways to either save hundreds of millions of dollars and simultaneously create measurable social change, why are more companies not doing this? Why they're not more examples? We scoured the world and we were able to find some examples that you can see in our study and I've got a few copies here, but there aren't more and there are four reasons for this. We'll be able to talk about the four reasons in the discussion. That's great. So just for the organizational structure and behavior, the inability to measure this because it's a complex issue, the third is that there is low motivation to collaborate with other companies, which allows these things to happen when they're so elusive, and the fourth is the challenge of getting alignment with government, which has its own interest. Thanks very much. Okay, Matt, the floor is yours. Is it okay if I sit? It's not because I'm lazy. I want Jane's wisdom to rub off on me. So first of all, Dan, thank you for inviting us to participate and to the rest of you, actually you're welcome for the spring weather that we brought with us from California. Thank you. Thank you. You don't have to say thank you. I know I can feel it already. So normally when we come and we speak at forums like this, we're talking about accomplishments and results and things that we've done over the past several years, but actually it is going to be a little bit different for us. I'd like to maybe share with you our journey of discovery. It sounds a little bit soft and mushy for an oil company, but that's sort of where we're at, and I think it might be interesting. So to level-set a little bit, we're a California-based oil and gas business. I've been around for 135 years, and we have 60,000 plus employees around the world, not counting a couple hundred thousand contractors. And, you know, we have a fairly interesting business. It's complex. It's technologically advanced, and it comes with a fair amount of geological risk. And along with that comes what we call sort of the above-ground risk as well, some social environmental risk. We operate alongside neighbors that are often disaffected communities with high level of need, extreme poverty, expectations, and the word expectations is the word to probably hear a lot this morning. Expectations around jobs, around contracts, to provide goods and services, low content expectations, communities where there are tensions, not only tensions between the communities and our industry, but tensions among the communities themselves. We operate in post-conflict areas, areas that have a lack of opportunity, particularly for youth, with challenging conditions around health care and education. So that's sort of the backdrop of the environment that we work in. And the good news is I feel very fortunate because I work in a company of values and a set of values that guides our business activities, that ensures that we conduct our business in a socially and environmentally responsible way. Our corporate responsibility activities demand that we operate safely, that we protect workers and our neighbors, and that we engage communities. In fact, our own requirements create expectations that we engage our communities in a two-way dialogue. It's baked into our very management system. Our approach to CSR also involves a long standing commitment to communities and our social investment program reflects that. We invest approximately $250 million a year making us one of the largest corporate programs in the world in the areas of health, education, economic development. These are, of course, the building blocks for strong societies. We don't do it just for altruistic reasons. We do it because we recognize that we thrive best in thriving economies. And so that's sort of the backdrop of who we are. We've invested in HIV and AIDS programs in Africa, in science, technology, engineering, and math programs here in the United States. And we have these large-scale economic development initiatives all over the world that also come with their own degree of technical complexity in places like Bangladesh and the Niger Delta and here in Western Pennsylvania. And throughout everything we do, our investments in societies, all of our programs, this nagging question continues to percolate of what more can we do? What more can we do to support our business? What more can we do to support the community where we operate? One of the things that we recognize is, despite the scale of our social investments, it's still a drop in the bucket. There's no way that Chevron can solve all of society's problems, nor, frankly, do we view it as our role, even if we wanted to. But the question is, how do we continue to scale? The one thing Dane said, he talked about that, he mentioned that short-term mitigation doesn't work. And what I would say is, short-term risk mitigation does work, but it's hard to bring it to scale and it's likely not sustainable. And so in that regard, I think we're aligned. So our journey then takes us to the concept of shared value. And to be really frank about it, when the concept was first released by Professor Porter in 2011, we were a bit skeptical. We didn't see how it applied to us. Most of the examples that you hear cited today in that we heard about back in 2011, 2012 referred mostly to the consumer goods sector. If you repackage your product, can you lower cost? If you can unlock new markets by providing health education to certain areas, can you identify new customers for your pharmaceutical products? That all makes perfect sense. But how does it apply to us? The challenges that we're facing are, again, around our license to operate, our permission to operate, ability to operate and manage conflict, to reduce operational disruption. How does shared value fit in that context? And it wasn't necessarily apparent to us a few years ago. And that stimulated conversations with Professor Porter and a lot of the people you see here today, about how do we think about this in a different way? How do we think about shared value in the context of our industry? And that was sort of the foundation for the shared value, for the extractives white paper. And even, I think the drafting of that white paper was tricky and had a lot of, required a lot of education around the nature of our operations, the things that we can control for and things that we can control for. And over time, our thinking has started to shift a little bit. And when I say our thinking, I'm not saying the company's at large, because we are really in the early stages of discovery. If any of our executives are watching this now, they might find this to be quite new. And that's okay. Because the concept is new for us. But what we've learned is, number one, that there are pockets of excellence in our business around the world. They don't know the term shared value. They're not intending to create shared value. But there are projects in Nigeria and Pascagoula Mississippi and Columbia that are trying to, to, to flip the concept on its ear. And what I mean by that is, we undertake social investment, obviously to do social good, but to support our business. I think that's obvious. But is there a way of flipping that paradigm on its axis? Can we, through our business strategies, create social good, and in so doing, as Dane was talking about, create a competitive advantage for Chevron? And that's the question. And, and I don't fully know the answer to that, but it's an intriguing question because the scale of our business is so immense. I mentioned how much we invest in our communities through our social investment program. In the last six years, we've spent over $250 billion in goods and services around the world. So the appeal of thinking about shared value is, can we unlock our base business and bring to scale greater social impact? And can we find a way of using that to manage operational disruption, to reduce costs, and to improve the opportunities? And, you know, obviously, in a, you know, $40, $50 a barrel environment, the more efficient we can become, the better it is for our business and the better it can be for society as well. I don't know much how my, Dan, do I have time to talk about, let me, let me talk about one example that some of you may be familiar with, Niger Delta, difficult place to operate. So this is an area in the 90s was ripe with conflict, all kinds of tension, just affected in armed youth in the Delta. They stole equipment. We had our operations attacked. There were demands for jobs, for contracts, for, for money. There's competition among communities for land, ethnic conflict, villages near our operation, we're often destroyed, and we experience illegal bunkering of oil. Shut in oil means reduction in production. It doesn't get any more close to the business than that. And our community projects weren't working. And to Dan's point, they were having, they were creating benefit, but they weren't working for our business and clearly weren't meeting the needs of the stakeholders. So 10 years ago, we undertook a new approach called the GMO use, the General Memorands of Understanding. We negotiated independently with the eight regional development committees that represented hundreds of communities. And with a, a, with principles that all ethnic groups would be treated equally. And we were guided by the World Bank principles on development to make sure that development projects were owned and developed, implemented by the local communities themselves. I mean, by engaging communities in this way and by building the capacity of communities and these RDCs to manage conflict amongst themselves, we all saw it and saw different results. Over 500 projects have been developed and implemented, owned by these often rival contingencies or constituencies. More importantly, for our business standpoint, I don't mean more importantly for society, but more importantly for our business standpoint and for this discussion. In 1998, we had over 80, 80 disruptions to our operations. By 2012, we had zero. Now, I can't promise that number remains intact forever, right? It's a fluid situation and IJGELTA is complicated and that would be disingenuous. But clearly, we can see a direct linkage between what we're doing to support our business operation and building the capacity of local communities to manage conflict, which has a much huge impact on society than building a hospital or clinic. That's one example. I'm happy to talk about more and talk about the GMO using more detail. But, you know, I guess my final comment is, again, we are at a journey. Most of the things, most of the comments I have are really questions for ourselves. We're at the early stages. We're trying to identify best practices that exist in our company, see if we can model it, see if we can develop a proof of concept. And if we can, is it something that we can bring to scale? And so I'd say we're at the early phases of this journey and happy to talk about kind of where we're heading next. Thank you very much. Jane, thanks for coming down from Boston to be with us. Thank you. I'll be pleased to see that I didn't bring any snow with me from Boston. Thank you for that. Thank you, thank you, thank you. But I'm great, great to be here. I think when we talk about the role of oil, gas and mining, to me, that they're two fundamental leadership imperatives, whether it, you know, we're looking at shale gas development in Pennsylvania and mining here in Nevada, United States, or we're looking at Papua New Guinea in Nigeria. And I think the two leadership imperatives are first and not necessarily foremost, but absolutely critical, the ongoing day in day out, identification, prevention, mitigation of risk. And and it is important. And yes, the short term risk management isn't enough, but it continues to be challenging and critical every single day. And there's also the systemic risk management around governance, surround benefit sharing, which leads into shared value. But you know, so I think that that risk management piece is incredibly important and is linked to shared value. But then the second imperative is identifying and creating shared value. And that can be shared value at the level of the project with local contents or local employment, local training, local enterprise development. It can be shared value in the broader community with rarely effective community development foundations with consultation with communities. And it can be and needs to be shared value in terms of how the actual resource taxes and royalties are paid and used by governments. But those two fundamental imperatives of identifying, preventing and mitigating shared risk and identifying and creating shared value, I think are the same in regards of the size of project or where they happen. And and you're focusing more on the shared value piece, but also on the risk piece. Why? Why isn't it happening more? And I want to just pick up on the introduction that Dane made to some of the challenges. I think there's three sort of real leadership challenges that the pretty much all all companies are facing. And the first set is internal challenges to getting this right. And that I think in the majority of oil, gas and mining companies, even the leaders, there's still too much of a silo between the project management, operational teams on the one hand, and environmental social community relations teams on the other. You know, there's still different metrics, they're different incentives, they're different skill sets, they're different mindsets, and they're often different timeframes and that anyone and I know I'm looking out at this room, a number of you who've done community based consensus building and consultation takes years. And yet, you know, if you're doing a construction project, you've got to be very focused on getting it in on schedule, on time, you know, safely and hopefully with minimal risk. So even sort of reconciling timeframes often between the project management teams and the community relations teams internally can be challenging. There's the link of not just different metrics, but not necessarily respecting each other's metrics. And so we need to get a lot better at managing and identifying the return on social investment to the business, which is obviously part of making the business case, but also at measuring the development impact of social programs for consultation with communities, etc. I think we need to ensure that the engineers and the project managers and the finance guys and girls better understand the social dimensions and the fact that there is a technical skill set that is every bit as important now as an engineering technical skill set. And so, you know, for example, Rio Tinto started a program for all of their senior managers, you know, regardless of what their functions are, to better understand the social environmental governance risk aspects of the business. So, you know, making sure that even if you have continued to have and you need to have different skill sets because you need anthropologists and, you know, development experts often in the community relations area, you need the engineers clearly in the operations and the project management area, but how do we ensure that there's greater knowledge and understanding and mutual respect internally for each other's skill sets and capabilities. So you're seeing also more companies setting up cross-functional teams, you know, whether it's at the mine site or the project site or at the corporate level, you're seeing these training programs, you're seeing communities of practice beginning to emerge and a much, much stronger focus than Veronica might want to pick up on this, on the metrics piece and really trying to find ways to understand and respect each other's metrics and get better, particularly at the social metrics. I think we're pretty good at the environmental and the safety metrics now, but the social metrics is where there's a lot of work needed. So that's a sort of like the first set of challenges. How do we get these organizational structures and the culture and the metrics working internally to really get better at this shared risk management and creating shared value? I think the second set of challenges is around this area of building, effectively building consensus and partnership, whether it's at the community level or more broadly. And it's not easy, and many of you in this room have the practice of trying to do it that you're just building consensus with local communities, identifying who's important in local communities, going beyond the traditional leaders and making sure particularly gender is brought into it that women have a voice, that young people have a voice, that the non-traditional leaders are part of the discussion and the effort around building consensus. You're building partnerships with non-governmental organizations, whether it's an international group like Mercy Corps or in Perua local NGO like Co-operacion. How do we build again greater mutual respect and trust between massive big projects and companies and often sort of smaller NGOs and recognize that both have different competencies and capabilities to bring to the table. So I think a lot of work still need to, I sort of worry we've got very glib in the terminology of public, private partnerships and we need partnerships and we do, but that recognition. I used to pay my mortgage on those. Yeah. But the recognition that they're difficult and challenging to build. And again, we need to really focus on building the skill sets to achieve more effective both consultation and consensus building as well as partnership. And then third and very quickly, I think that the biggest challenge that we have to acknowledge face on is government and governance. And your companies, the oil and gas and mining companies can control what they can control at the project level at the local level. And that's hard enough. But you can never ignore the fact that the billions of dollars are what are being paid in royalties and taxes and revenues to government. And and finding ways more creative. I think the donor community has a very important role to play here in building government capacity. There's there's the challenge of bad governance and corruption and working collectively. I think the industry can work collectively as we are seeing with the extract of industries, transparency initiative, the voluntary principles on security and human rights where industry is coming together collectively to address some of the corruption human rights challenges and governance. And I think now there's an opportunity to work more collectively on the distribution aspects of revenue management. So we need to focus on the transparency of revenue payments and tackling corruption. But once the revenues have been paid, how can we be more creative at saying these billions of dollars are now in the government coffers? How do we make sure that there's better allocation between national government, regional government, local government? How do we build the capacity of regional and local governments to better use those resources? How does the business sector, particularly the extractor sector, but with other companies, get more engaged in setting priorities? Is money going to be spent on infrastructure? Is it going to be spent on agriculture? I don't know if anyone from Oxfam is here, but they've got an interesting program and garner at the moment called Oil for Agriculture and sort of actually saying, how do we take some of the extractive revenues and be very explicit and conscious and collective on how those revenues are allocated to other productive sectors and other employment creation sectors? Because at the end of the day, oil, gas, and mining don't create a lot of direct employment, but they can have incredible multiplier employment effects if the revenues are well spent. So I think those three areas of the company level, project level, getting it right between the technical, engineering teams, business teams and the community relations teams and the metrics right. And then at the broader community level, building the consensus and partnerships that are needed. And then the governance, the broader governance level are the great opportunities for those creating shared value and better managing risk. I can only say amen. I think I was talking earlier and I said, why? I think the kinds of work that Jane does at Harvard, we actually need to be thinking about how do we incorporate that kind of curriculum at the Colorado School of Mines actually in some ways in terms of the operation folks who actually when they grow up become managing directors or country managers. They may or may not be that actually it's a different community of people that it's in the engineering schools and others. So I think that's one. I do think one of the interesting things in the report is there's discussion about how one of the banks added to increase the discount rate on projects given the community risk. And so that does get operational folks attention in terms of when it touches them at a business level. And then I think this other issue of government and governance, we've done a lot of work here around strengthening procurement systems of developing countries, thinking about local government, especially the context of urbanization. But also I think there's this very large conversation now that's going to go on around the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals around domestic resource mobilization. And so I think Chevron's the largest taxpayer in Peru and Bangladesh. So taxes and fees from companies and from individuals is something like 10 times the amount of all foreign aid to give you a sense of it. And certainly multiples and multiples of that of all corporate philanthropy. So having capable governments really does matter. USAID used to have in the 50s and 60s a whole practice called public administration. And perhaps we need to perhaps return to that as part of a part of this discussion. It certainly touches on that. So thank you, Jane, for those I agree with you. Graham, thanks for being here. Thank you, Dan. I'm going to start out by saying a little bit about who Mercy Corps is and why we're here and then why we're so interested in the potential of shared value programming with extractives companies. Mercy Corps is an international non-governmental organization and INGO where about 4,500 people living and working in communities in about 40 countries around the world. And since 1979, our mission has been to help people facing some of the world's toughest problems overcome those problems and not just survive but thrive. And in the last year alone, we've reached 17 million people with our programs and help them live better lives, recovered more quickly from disasters, put more food on the table. Sorry. Yeah, live better lives. And we know that every community is different, but we also know that we see better results when we see better results when. Yeah. Sorry. We'll go to Veronica. Yeah. Okay. Veronica. So you're at IFC and tell me about this conversation around metrics and measurement. And you guys that were the founders of the Equator Principles. And I think that touches on this issue of touching that some of the social and environmental issues that have come up in this conversation, a lot of the standard setting and a lot of the work comes from IFC. Tell us what is IFC? It's not the independent film channel, right? So tell us a little bit about that. Tell us what it is and tell us how you guys plan this because I think the point that the report makes is this is about companies. And so Mercy Corps or IFC in some ways are part of that ecosystem but this is about companies. And so how do you guys fit into the conversation around companies? Okay. Well, Dan asked me to tell you that I'm not part of the independent film channel but I sort of wasn't going to mention it because I thought you might pay more attention if you thought I was. So now you've kind of ruined that for me, Dan. But I'm going to try and power through. Anyway. Can they talk to you afterwards if they want to learn more about the independent film channel? If you can introduce me to somebody, please. So IFC is the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. We are the world's largest development actor focused exclusively on the private sector. Because we don't invest here in the U.S. and only invest in developing countries, a lot of folks in D.C. actually don't know us very well. Essentially, you know, we provide both debt and equity to different clients. I work in the extractive industries and infrastructure group. I'm on the advisory services side. So we have an investment arm of the IFC and then we also offer advisory services all focused around shared value. So our feeling is that shared value is essentially our core product. You know, at the end of the day, that should be our widget. We focus on investing for profit, but we reinvest all of our profit into emerging markets to spur further development. Just to give you a sense of, you know, the opportunity of shared value that we see to put a little additional hope, I think it's been a very hopeful conversation already. But, you know, in the reporting period of 2014, our oil gas and mining clients, which our commitment across oil gas and mining last year was about 2.5 billion, our clients contributed 4.7 billion to government revenues across countries, created or sustained 92,000 direct jobs, spent approximately 49 million on community investments and invested, purchased 7.9 billion in local and national goods and services. And we're actually a fairly small investor, you know, compared to what's really happening out there in all the equator banks. So I just want to mention that. Just give them a sense of the size of your investment because it's actually quite, it is impressive though. I mean, it's something like 15 or $20 billion in investments every year. Yeah, and so, I mean, last year we committed 2.5 billion just in oil gas and mining. So, but, you know, just to say that our market is still relatively niche because we have these pretty high environmental and social and governance standards. And yet now the equator banks are following those same principles. The real difference, because you brought it up Dan, is that within IFC, if you're an investee, we have a lot of environmental and social governance experts that then go out and review your project on their own and report back to us whether or not you've been able to not just comply, but whether or not you're moving towards environmental, social and governance standards that are gonna help mitigate the risk to your business and also share value locally and make sure that there are enduring benefits from that investment. And maybe just to mention that the reason a lot of this focus for IFC came about was in 2005, 2006, there was an extractive industry review across the World Bank Group, some of you might be familiar with. And there was a big question, you know, sometimes I get asked at these events, you know, some people are pulling out of extractives. Why are you guys still so active? And I think our feeling is that it is critical to be part of the positive process and solution. And so maybe I can give a couple of examples of where we are investing in shared value. Actually, before I do, I just wanted to mention, it's always hard to speak after, you know, these very insightful friends and colleagues, but something that hasn't come up yet that I just wanna put on the table is the downturn that we're in right now. And I think a lot of you are in this space. And it's a really difficult time. And so even talking about shared value and walking that talk is always difficult. But I just wanna, among friends, bring a new kind of reality check into the room because talking about it and implementing it now is even more challenging. And so as we open up for discussion, I would really welcome insights and experiences on what it's feeling like today. Let's see, so just some examples of the work that we do with our clients to try and share value is we invest in local content in Guinea and Ghana. We invest in capacity building for local government to better manage extractive revenue in Peru and Columbia. We work with mining companies in Mongolia on water stewardship and water management that includes not just technical, but also social and political and cultural concerns. And increasingly, we're moving into the space of shared infrastructure. So whether it's Guinea or Mozambique or Brazil, both transport and power, how do we use our extractive investments to be a real catalyst for bringing new infrastructure into remote places? As IFC, as an investor in this space, what we often get asked, maybe by some of you in the room, I won't ask you to raise your hands, is how does IFC decide whether or not a particular investment is going to lead to shared value? How do we know that an investment that you make as a development agency is going to share benefits that are enduring across the host society? And this is something that we've decided that it's really important to lift the veil on what was seen as maybe a not well understood process that IFC goes through and share kind of the art and science of how we assess benefit sharing across our extractive investments. And so we have a new paper that's just out, it's actually on comdev.org, c-o-m-m, for communitydevelopment.org. And it does- I love it. It's called The Art and Science of Benefit Sharing in the Natural Resource Sector. It strongly recommends us. We're very creative. If you have trouble sleeping at night. No, actually, no, I would read this one over breakfast. I think this is really worth looking at. Because what really, I think the reason we're here today, Dan, is because as IFC as an investor, with a development mandate that we are held to quite rigorously by our board and our shareholders and our clients ultimately in country, is whether or not our investments are having a positive local impact. So I just wanted to share a couple of highlights from the Benefit Sharing paper and then I'll mention the financial evaluation tool. That's all right. Essentially, for every single project we do, we have a rigorous process, but it has to be multidisciplinary and that's where the art and science both come in. It's not enough to just benchmark your asset or your investment or project against other projects, either in that country or in other countries because there are so much, so many differences that need to be factored in. And of course, there is a huge fiscal element to Benefit Sharing and we spend a lot of energy and I think we all have historically on trying to assess the fiscal regime and the cost and benefit sharing, but that's too narrow a focus. When we think about the opportunity for shared value and extractive investments, we have to be looking at a broader array of both costs and benefits. So we think it's critical to incorporate the economic perspective on costs and benefits, but also factoring in environmental and social and other goods things like infrastructure, like water stewardship, making sure that we account for all of that and that is essentially the process that we go through project by project and this paper highlights for you the questions that we ask ourselves internally when trying to figure this out and the reason that we're making it public for the first time is because we hope that it will be used as a platform. It does sound like something you should read over breakfast actually, this is pretty good. I'm gonna buy you coffee after this. So, but it's essentially to provide you with a table of contents for the conversation, the multi-stakeholder dialogue that you should be having in country, right? This has to be multi-stakeholder. I think to me the key issue is constituencies and also timeframe. I like to use, I'm moving more and more to the word constituencies. I'd love to know what my fellow panelists think, because particularly here in Washington, I know you understand what I'm talking about, right? A stakeholder may or may not have influence. A constituent has a voice that actually matters and has to be accounted for and responded to. So when I think about benefit sharing at a country level, I like to think about, have all the different constituencies been represented and accounted for. And then I think the other key issue and I'll move on is time frames. That part of why we need all the constituencies at the table is that everybody, as Jane pointed out so clearly, everybody understands time frames differently and they have very different expectations. So when we look at a project and we say to the government and to the client, yes, we have assessed the lifespan of this asset and we believe that over time, it will produce a reasonable sharing of fiscal benefits. But over time, I mean, the government might not see that revenue for many years. There's a huge long process before that happens and for a lot of these governments, this is a new industry for them and they don't understand those time frames and then they don't know how to explain that to their constituents on the ground who are having an even longer time horizon where they get all the costs upfront and the benefits much later. So I think this is, and now in this downturn, how we've made commitments to meet certain time frames and now the schedules are off. So what are we going to do to communicate and to have a new conversation revising those time frames with all of our different hosts in country? And I think this is, we're probably kind of late in having this conversation. And so anyway, our hope is that this will help to get that conversation started. I would really welcome feedback from anybody who has a chance to look at it. Because of the two critical, two of the critical barriers that FSG so poignantly remarked on in their paper on shared value and that Jane also reiterated about the barriers to making shared value happen. One is a lack of internal alignment. I mean, this is, I would say, all of our advisory work for all of our clients is focused on trying to improve their internal alignment. I mean, this is kind of top secret because everybody thinks we're all focused on the external partnerships, but we find that the sharing of value and the healthy, resilient relationships with their stakeholders often are not happening because there isn't clear internal alignment across business functions. So I really appreciate that focus. Yes, you're wrapping me up. I'm using myself even once. I was raising his eyebrows, it was very mysterious. And then the other issue is really, are we measuring the return that companies are getting back from making investments in shared value? And that's really why I was asked here today. So over the last four or five years, we've been working with Rio Tinto, Newmont, Cairn, Pacific Ruby Alice, and now increasingly agriculture companies and Deloitte and MIGA, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency at the World Bank Group, to design a process and a software and a tool to help companies at the firm level assess that net present value return that they get back at the asset level from making investments in shared value and sustainability. Be happy to share more examples of that, but just to say, because as has been talked about today, sometimes the incentive, particularly in a downturn, is not clear. It looks like pure outlay because the community relations team or somebody else is spending, but the benefit might be coming back to the land acquisition team or to HR or to procurement and the equation across the entire organization of the different functions is not put into one place. So be happy to give some examples about that. Thank you. Okay, Graham, was it something I said? No, I think it's that I didn't have breakfast. Next time I'm going to have breakfast before I do this. I'll just, maybe I'll shorten it up a little bit, but as I said, Mercy Corps is an international non-governmental organization and we're working in about 40 countries around the world and we really work with countries and companies, communities from within. We know that every community is different and that the solutions are going to be different for every community. So we don't arrive with a preset agenda for success, but we have found one thing to be true almost everywhere that we work and that's that we get the best results when business, government and the community are all society are all kind of working together towards the same goal and we work in some of the world's toughest places around the world, places like Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Iraq and we look around those places and we ask ourselves, who else is here? Who else has a commitment to this community, a long-term commitment and a long-term stake in its success? And we ask who has the resources to do something about that? And it's often a resource, an extractive company. And the potential has not always been realized. As Dane pointed out, the success of those kinds of, that potential alignment has not always worked out, but we think shared value offers an opportunity. It offers bold ideas and we know we're gonna need those to solve these kind of problems. It offers partnership and we know we can't solve these kind of problems alone and it offers a long-term perspective. And to help move the last billion, 1.3 billion people in the world out of extreme poverty, these are people that are living exactly in those places, in the world's toughest places. To help move those people up out of extreme poverty, we're gonna need those three things, bold ideas, new partners and a long-term commitment. And it's early days for shared value. We don't know if it's gonna fulfill that potential, but that's why we're excited about it. Thank you very much. Can I, Jane, do you wanna just, yes? One point, building on what Graham said, I think you're coming back to this partnership question, the role that Mercy Corps, I see Catholic Relief Services here and Consensus Building Institute, the role that some of the humanitarian and development NGOs can play as intermediaries, I think between the companies and the communities is again, one of the most untapped areas, I think for achieving those objectives. Recognizing that, I think is important. I think it is a company-centric discussion, but companies on their own, companies recognize, I think, that they can't do it alone. And so if it's not, if it's whether it's connecting to supply chains or whether it has to do with having good community relations, it's on their own, they can't, they do, it requires partnership. And I think that was one of the things I thought that collaboration, I guess, was the term that was used in the report. It changes. But actually, your intermediation, so it's not just the company partnering with the Mercy Corps or Consensus Building Institute, but Mercy Corps and Consensus Building Institute and others, intermediating between the company and its other partners, I think is a new thing, we haven't looked at enough before, which I think is so exciting. All right, so I had lots of questions I could ask you all. I do think I'm gonna open up to the audience, we've got about 20 minutes and I do think the audience deserves a chance to ask you all. So I'm gonna ask folks to be economical in your answers, but also I would ask you guys, I think to take one of Veronica's points about, okay, one thing I do want you to do in your responses is to say, okay, briefly, what's this mean in a downturn environment, at least in the oil, gas and mining sector with? What does this mean or how do you do that? So that's the one question I'll ask you guys to park. So I'm gonna, we've got, I'm sure there's lots of hands, so we're gonna make a deal, right? So we're gonna get lots of questions, but everyone's gonna honor the fact that we got a lot of people and so we're gonna keep it brief and we're gonna have name rank and serial number and then we're gonna have the question, right? So we've got microphones. Okay, so I wanna hear from Andrew Mack. I hear from this woman in the middle here and then I wanna hear from this man standing, right? So we're gonna bunch them together, World Bank Group Style, since IFCs here is World Bank Group Style, it's supposed to World Bank Style. Okay. Right. Thanks, Dan. Andrew Mack and Global, great panel, really excellent. The quick question is this, we now have in Africa, for example, 42 countries who now have proven reserves of oil and gas, either they're producing, but most of them are not. Most of them are new to the thing, which means that you've got a tremendous number of new actors. We had the privilege of working with Chevron for six and a half years on a road safety project, which was amazing, but Chevron has a long timeline and has some significant resources to work with. How do the entrance of new smaller groups in the resource extraction sphere, how do they change the dynamic? How do they change the dynamic for larger, longer-term players? And what are the lessons that we should learn from these new actors? What should we be asking them to do that's within their reach? Okay, I think it's a good one, Andrew, and I think I'm thinking of a company like Hess, where they say they are winning contracts and awards because of their social and environmental reputation, so thank you for that. This woman here, and then this gentleman standing. No, yep. Hi, Holly Dranganis from the ENEF Project. Thanks so much for all your comments. It's been an interesting conversation. I was just hoping to hear a bit more from any of you, specifically on setting up effective and responsible security systems at operations, whether that's with public actors or private. Typically it's both, right? Especially in conflict-affected areas where there's almost always a tension between mitigating the real risk of armed actors and fulfilling basic human rights, avoiding arbitrary detentions, respecting the freedom of expression. There's been a lot of normative progress in this area, but just really curious about your perspectives on how it's going in practice. Thanks. Thank you. Okay, this gentleman over here. Mike, there's only one microphone. Oh, sorry. Okay. Hello, Neil Sandler. I'm from the public sector of the World Bank working on local content, and I would like to ask you where do you see in all the different parts of shared value creation that you talked about? Where do you see it ranking in terms of priorities? Maybe Veronica, I guess, since in your shared value paper, you're looking at different aspects if you can sort of talk about that. And especially now in the downturn also, is it a topic that increases in importance? So, which I think was kind of the message from the mining conference in Daba, and Matt, maybe you can talk about, is that the same for the oil and gas industry? Thanks. We're gonna go Veronica down this way. Veronica, you're first. I really appreciate the, I'll give them different weight because I think there's different, you know, a lot of expertise next to me, so I wanna be fast, but I really like the point about new players and new companies and what are our new expectations. I think that's a huge concern, particularly for us because so much of what we're doing is in the emerging space. And it is, what I think the biggest caution is kind of Jane alluded to is that we're just trying to move too fast. And you know, the developers are probably trying to move too fast and the governments are trying to keep pace because they also are desperate for the revenue, but you know, it's just a lot harder to clean up if we don't get those systems and capacities and skills in place ahead of time. So, you know, I know we can say it and nobody will listen and everybody will still be rushing towards the goal, but I feel like if there is some way collectively that we could agree that we have to pace ourselves in the beginning, that would make a huge difference and people would be less frustrated. I think Larry Suskind from MIT, you know, has a great phrase that you've got to go slow to go fast later. So anyway, that's a quick comment on that. And I'm afraid in terms of the local content and benefit sharing, I missed the specifics of the question in terms of, oh, thank you, sorry. I would say it's up at the top, particularly where you have national governments coming up with more and more legislation requiring some form of local content. My concern is that that often sometimes is a knee-jerk response because they've been told that that's the only way to get shared value. And sometimes I think the requirements have not been designed in consultation with the business actors and others in the country. And so sometimes we set unrealistic goals that, you know, end up, the parties that should be collaborating are kind of in court instead and that's not probably good use of energy. So I think though, coming behind it and what may ultimately surpass it, I'm sure lots of people disagree with me, but I think it's probably shared infrastructure. And so I think it's just a matter of time, whether it's, you know, power and transport, but also increasingly water management and stewardship, I think are probably gonna crowd out that space. I hope because that'll just become so normalized that we'll end up struggling more on the infrastructure side. But I'd love to hear what others think. I'm gonna let others tackle the security issue. So let's just go, we're gonna go down the row. Graham, do you wanna answer any of these? Use the microphone. Sure, yeah, I was just thinking about security, which has always been an issue for NGOs like Mercy Corps and the places where we work. And it's increasingly a big issue for us. And it's complicated and I'm not our security manager, so I won't go deeply into it, but just to say more maybe about how we approach it and what it has to do with shared value even. And that's, you know, our security as a nonprofit in dangerous conflict-ridden areas comes from transparency and from building a long-term reputation with the community and everyone in it for transparency and for being an honest broker. And that's the kind of relationship that we bring to a shared value project that we think helps the company also maintain the kind of secure presence they need in a community. And it's what also keeps us safe in that community. I think that's a great point and I'm building on that to me from the company perspective, there are two elements of security. And one which I don't think we look at enough is how do you use your community consensus building and consultation and engagement strategy as part of your overall security strategy and think more about how you build trust as part of the security strategy. But then there is the actual training and mobilization of security forces, both public and private. And I personally think I know the voluntary principles for security and human rights have a lot of challenges but I think to me they're one of the most exciting things that have happened in terms of getting industry-wide sort of buy-in to something, it's not industry-wide but the major players. As always, the challenge is then the implementation on the ground. And I think we are making progress. I think again there's a great role for intermediary organizations, whether it's the Mercy Corps or the Red Cross, I know I can pop in again, the Red Cross is helping to sort of intermediate between companies and the security forces and do training of security forces. So I think the need to continue the training, being vigilant and you're building the capacity of those security forces again is a form of shared value. So you're managing your security risk, you're hopefully managing human rights risks and respecting human rights but you're also building the capabilities of security forces to be better to serve the citizens that they are supposed to be serving of their public security forces. So it's a longer conversation but I think there's progress being made but we shouldn't just think about the traditional security aspect, the community engagement but I think needs to be part of security strategy and the gender piece I think very importantly needs to be part of security strategy. Local content, I think from the company perspective, there's still a lot that companies can do but I think they're doing some very interesting work there. I agree with Veronica that the opportunity for both shared infrastructure going forward but also you're collectively working, say like in the towns and areas, some of the new countries where oil, gas and mining are becoming more important. You're how can the industry work together on joint enterprise development centers, joint vocational training initiatives as well as their own so that you're actually building local content at a more strategic level and business to business partnerships I think have a great opportunity there. And Andy, your question, it's a mixed bag, isn't it? Because some of the smaller players like the Hesse's and the endarkers of this world, I think are real finding a niche place based on social and environmental impact. Others are sliding under the radar screen with very bad standards. And there's a question of the Chinese and Taiwanese and other companies coming in and how we work with them but it's gonna be very, very important to engage as much as possible and share good standards. Thank you. Matt Alavis was directed towards you and I think somewhat to Dain. So both of you I think would, I want to give you guys a chance to respond. Thank you. So let me speak first to the question about local content. I mean, as Veronica said, you know, there are certainly a lot is being driven by a national content regulatory schemes but community expectations driving a lot of the local content requirements. And the good news is I think, I agree with Veronica, it's at the very top of the list for us in terms of how it can be used as a force for shared value. But I would also say that it's got the most moving parts associated with it. It's one thing to work with the Mercy Corps to train local entrepreneurs. It's quite another to try to uplift potential suppliers and building the passive local supplier to meet our standards and community standards. That's a much trickier nut to crack but something I think that there's great potential to unlock. We spent a lot of time here talking about building capacity and I think that it comes in many forms. Certainly building the capacity of local suppliers is critical but also working with local implementing partners on local content strategies which I think again are more complex. It's one of the reasons actually why we're working with Mercy Corps and FSG on an international NGO working group to help build the capacity of NGOs to think with a shared value context. And we haven't really talked much about that but I think there's a lot of opportunity there of training field practitioners in the shared value construct but it's also building capacity internally. So as Jane said, we do have these sort of sometimes disaggregated pieces. We've got the CSR functions that are distinct from the supply chain management functions and their function is focused on managing procurement and not building capacity of local suppliers and so it requires sort of this triad between implementers, supply chain management and the CSR function in a way that is fairly complex and difficult but again, I think it's got the most potential to scale if we can get it right. The question about the kind of smaller players as far as I know there hasn't been much discussion in industry associations about shared value and it probably is something that in the time has probably come to have those conversations. And again, as I said, we're sort of at the beginning of this journey and I think other oil and gas companies are looking at it as well. And so I think that conversation is probably bound to happen sooner rather than later and I think that's probably your greatest opportunity to bring those in, maybe you don't have the same access and level of development in this space. Okay, thank you, Dane. Yeah, real quickly here, great questions. First of all, on local content, first of all, yes, super high priority and yes, Matt, as Matt has indicated, it's very hard. What's happening though is companies are recognizing that they need to be prepared for this so they don't get taken by surprise by national legislation that is going to impose on them really high requirements of local content and then force them to spend a lot more money in a non-strategic way and so companies want to be prepared for that and the smart ones are getting ahead on that. Now what is critical is that companies when they're thinking about this need to be both persistent and ambitious. I can't tell you how many companies have said, oh yeah, we looked at that and we have tried to train local companies to be local content suppliers but we've discovered that really the only thing that we can do is we can use them to help provide food service or we can use them to help clean up around the facilities. We tried the training programs and they don't work. What's happened is that they've tried, many of them have tried very short training programs and it's not often possible to train a local company in six months what's really required to be an effective deliver of quality services that a company needs in order to be competitive and companies do a disservice to themselves if they then close their eyes to the challenge of that or if they decide, well we don't think these companies really can be competitive so we're not gonna hold them to as high standards or we're gonna have to pay above market prices for their services because that in turn does not help those companies become competitive over the long term. So it's important for them to be persistent and think broadly about what is the challenge of helping these companies evolve. If you look for example at what BHP Billiton has done in Chile to help some at this point 50 and their ambitions are to have over 200 local suppliers actually become globally competitive in supplying services, that's an example of a program that's lasted over a number of years and really has had success and has allowed BHP to lower its costs as a result of the work. On small companies, it may sound a little bit funny but we see that small companies that are looking for a role for themselves can play a little bit similar role to what Graham says that Mercy Corps does in the sense that there's an opportunity for a small company to be a catalyst. Oftentimes large companies will say, well we're big enough, we have enough resources to go on our own but small companies can be catalysts and also say okay well who else cares about this problem, who else is gonna be here and who can we bring together in a different way? It's enormously disappointing that even in the same regions you see over and over again mining companies refusing to work together, oil and gas companies refusing to work together because they wanna to capture the credit for what they've done instead of really trying to resolve the problem. And then one quick comment on security. I think it's important, it's a very complicated problem. You can't avoid the nature in many of these places to do a control of the security problems but more companies need to think more about prevention of this as well. And certainly the example that Chevron has in the Niger Delta where they're thinking about tackling the root problems that are driving security issues, it holds a lot of promise. But to do that is something that's very hard to do, you have to build institutional capital, you have to think about how you can tackle the problems that are driving the security problems such as poverty, such as cultural mistrust among different ethnic groups or different tribes, such as the lack of opportunity that's out there. But you see in a number of places there are some companies that are starting to think more about prevention in terms of tackling the root problems that are causing the security issues instead of just working to control them. Okay, I wanna hear from Harry Pestuzik, Tom Outlaw and this woman. So these three, Harry's back there, Mike behind you, Mike behind you. Sorry. Then Tom Outlaw and then this woman here, those three. Yeah, thanks for that, Dan. I really just wanted to make a comment relevant to a few of the aspects, right? So sure, I'm sorry, that's right, rank and all that information. I work at Pixar Global, an NGO here in DC, formerly of IFC and then of Bechtel. So I've got some interesting insights, the point about capacity building for NGOs who try to work in local content, I think was a good one. Coming out of an experience working with an engineering procurement and construction contractor that does work for oil and gas companies, I think I have, you know, I learned a lot about how one can incentivize local content. So that is a really a valid point. On the issue of smaller players, it's been touched on to an extent. They present opportunities as well as risks, I think. We're fortunate enough to be aligned with Anadarko in Mozambique and we're doing very good work building on the experiences we had in the early days in Baku, in Sakhalin, and then in the CHI project in Angola, right? And so you get opportunities with a cosmos energy or with a Hess or with an Anadarko, in some cases that you don't with big players, I think, to when they are open to what they don't know. So that's a one point. And then just something that hasn't come up and if the panelists would talk about, on the issue of shared value, how do you see the rise of national oil companies, particularly in a Sub-Saharan African context, playing out? Tom Outlaw, formerly of USAID and also with a formerly of a mine coming now back at AID. Yeah, so Tom Outlaw, formerly of AID, about to go back, but I just finished a four year stint in Madagascar, managing external relations for the world's largest nickel mine, the MBOTIVI project that's managed by shared international in Canada. First off, hats off to CSIS and Dan for using your substantial convening power to have a forum like this. I think it's a great use of your time and resources. I'd like maybe one more chair to be there for one of the bilaterals. I think that would add to the robustness of the conversation. Quick question for Veronica and then maybe a question slash observation for Matt. Veronica, I wanted your perspective on the proliferation in the standard setting business. I've only been back here four months, but I've already seen three separate presentations on organizations that are coming up with a new standards Bible, trying to sort of outrigger the last guy. At the end of the day, our company paid attention to the IFC standards, not no offense because they were the best, but because they were written into about $500 million of our lending covenants. And to Dan's earlier point, that's what got the CFO in the room. And so at the end of the day, that sort of interest alignment is what drove our attention. So I wonder if you consider this sort of a form of the imitation game, a good thing, is it a thousand flowers blooming is great, it means the sector is growing, people are paying more attention. Or on the corporate side, you see it as mudding the water. I mean, too many standards confuses corporate executives when they wanna have to have a long-term decision about which one they're gonna pick and follow. At the end of the day, my preference would be to have less than more and would be to focus on the implementation and the technical assistance around how to achieve that. Question from Matt. I want somebody to explain the, I consider a disconnect. Often it's been my experience that the social and environmental activities are almost always nested within the health and safety departments. I don't have a complete understanding of why that is, but I do know that it is the case. However, the acceptance of the linkage between spending on health and safety and the outcomes, LTIs and deaths is almost axiomatic, right? There's never a question that, well of course our spending on health and safety is what leads to the reductions in death and injury. But that's often not the case with social and environmental spending. So when I go to my CEO and I say, look we had two blockages, pitchforks and torches at the plant site last year and we had a week long blockage at our mine site which led to a full shutdown of the facility this year after thousands of hours of investment of time, resources, meeting people to death, we had nothing. That doesn't automatically translate into a budget increase and to me that would be the indicator that shared value, interest alignment, win-win, whatever you want to call it is actually truly mainstreamed. Thanks a lot. Okay, my friend in the third row. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much Mr. Tanya for this wonderful event. We hope all players in Africa on minerals and the oil cuts were in this event and we need to bake a conference for this event here on shared value. I'm an unprofit organization which focus on conflicts and violence and also a business person that focus on oil and cuts and minerals. How do you work with the small, just as Matt said, working with the small players on the ground instead of them being brokers and then you end up into problems and then it becomes a conflict. Like a woman, like me, you say it's small players or businesses are only for cooking. No, I'm a woman on business. I come from Africa, I'm really in oil and cuts and I'm in mining. How do we work with you to make this happen and other people on the ground, small businesses? This is what brings conflicts but if it's a shared value that local people are benefiting and based here in Washington DC, we are working together, then you are not seeing those conflicts because I know the problems of those countries, what they face and with that, I think the collaboration and the information sharing and such events Mr. Tanya let it be clopper and in Africa so that people can understand what shared value is in their minerals and in their oil and cuts, thank you. So I'm seeing some of my colleagues begin to hover so we've got for the panel, I've got about five more minutes because we have to take down the room so I'm gonna ask folks to be economical in your responses. So why don't we go down the road this way again, Veronica, start with you and everyone and we'll end with Dane. Okay, great. Tom, thanks for that great question. I think I agree with the proliferation of standards. It's interesting in our experience, our standards bring a lot of people to us because they think that getting the stamp of approval of following through on our standards helps them both as an entree into host governments, they're viewed as the developer of choice but also it helps them raise other capital on the open market because it has demonstrated to really help manage these non-technical risks that we're talking about. However, for some people it seems like a lot of work and they feel like they could sign up with an equator bank or somebody else and still say that they're meeting certain standards without necessarily the intense scrutiny that they go through with IFC. But I think the way that we're responding to that is trying to work more and more. Like Matt said, there's not a lot of discussion at the industry level and I think maybe there is more in mining than there is in oil and gas but I could be wrong. I mean, we're spending a lot of time working with ICMM, working with the folks at PDAC, talking to the Canadian Mining Association, working with the mining and metals at the World Economic Forum to really talk about, for example, water. When we're talking about water, are we using the same language? Are we asking our companies and partners to meet the same objectives? How can we harmonize, even just the language that we're using before it gets to a particular standard? And we're agreeing, this is not anybody's TOR, but we're agreeing that it's very confusing for our partners and clients. When we, even when we put the same point in different language, they don't have time to reconcile all of this. So I think increasingly that's where a lot of us are gonna be investing our energy and I think there's a lot of good coming from it but we're not there yet. So I just wanted to mention, if I can, then on the local content discussion, what didn't come out was the access to finance, which is absolutely critical. We have a very complex program in Guinea which includes legislative support for things like leasing laws and local content legislation, also local procurement for the off-taking companies, their strategies, as well as SME capacity building, but access to finance is really something that the companies cannot be expected to provide and where we need more private sector to jump in. Okay, Graham? Thanks. Graham gets the MVP award for being on the panel. Thanks for being here. Oh my gosh, thank you. Yeah, yeah. Thanks everybody for bearing with me. I'll just echo a little bit about the last point about the importance of small businesses and small organizations in the communities where the extractives companies are operating. That's definitely been Mercy Corps' approach. We don't start out in a community looking for a partnership with a multinational company. We start out in communities working with them and looking at their resources and their opportunities, starting with local businesses and then trying to work with those local businesses and see where is the pathway to prosperity for this community and often it involves taking that relationship a step up and bringing in the multinational company. That's also present in the community, but it's definitely building strength in the community from the bottom up and not trying to come in with the multinational company as the focus. Jane? Very quickly, the question on the link between the health safety departments and safety having a higher priority, I think there's a question if you need to do more work on the metrics, the social metrics and getting the clear metrics, but I think the metrics follow prioritization and strategy. For me, where you see the difference is where you've got a CEO and a senior management team who are saying the social, environmental side has to be part of budget planning, project planning, and the strategic pillars of the company and then I think we'll be more effective at aligning and prioritizing metrics. Also, very much second Graham's point on the importance of small businesses, local businesses as well as local NGOs and finding ways to identify and work collectively with local players and women-owned businesses being a key element. And then I guess a challenge to Dan to finish off with, I think having some shared value conversations at the country level or regional level would be important because the more and more we can do this at the country operational level, the better. Fair enough. So I detected in your question an air of frustration over sort of how we're gonna, there you got a thumbs up on that. My EQ is high today. Of how CSR functions are situated within organizations. And so I'm a fairly impatient person, but just to put it in a little bit of context, we've been around for 135 years. The discipline of CSR has been around for all of 25 years and shared value for all of four or five years, right? So it's difficult to pivot all that quickly, but having said all that in the last 10 years, the function of CSR, at least at Chevron, is embedded within our business units. They sit on the leadership teams. Our new country managers go through workshops around the expectations around CSR to build their capacity and they have expectations building into their business plan. So I think there's a lot of progress being made. I don't think that the function, irrespective of where it may reside in the organizational chart, I don't think the function is now bootstrapped to the organization. But I think a fully functioning partner within the business. But to James' point, the metrics are important. In a company of engineers and scientists, data matters. And as long as we continue to take an evidence-based approach to the work we do, we continue to build and grow the credibility of the function. Daniel, last word. What's interesting is I actually haven't found as much that companies are not willing to devote enough resources because many, if the asset that they're trying to protect is something that they've invested, hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of. And if there's a real risk of disruption, then they are willing to spend a lot of money. I had one CEO tell me, I can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on social projects and I'm glad to do it. The issue is what they spend the money on. Because what happens is most companies unfortunately are still taking too much of a checklist approach. If we do this, we do this, we do this, then hopefully we will prevent disruptions to our operations when really they have to take an approach that takes into consideration the root causes of what may cause those risks. So if you really were able to have a set of policies and programs that took you from a dynamic where there was active disruption in one year to no disruption in the next, that means you didn't take a checklist approach. That means you really listened to the communities. That means you really understood what the problems were. I think when in this kind of resource constrained environment though, what you're gonna find is that companies when they look at shared value, they see opportunities that they can't avoid. And so when budgets are being cut and they need to be cut because they're simply, the prices dropped by 50% for their key asset, they will continue, they will stop investing in building the local clinic. But they will do things like we've seen Angle of Gold Ashanti do in Ghana where they've taken a systematic approach to tackle the problem of malaria because in addition to decreasing malaria by 72%, they also decreased their lost work hours by 98% as a result of malaria. Now that delivers real results to the company and profound social impact. The more companies are able to find those things instead of taking a checklist approach, the more you're gonna see them continue to invest. Thank you very much. Dan, could I add one? No, I'm gonna, we do have to end it, I'm sorry. Listen, we're gonna, I need, I'm sorry. I need to ask you guys for your cooperation from the panelists. I'm gonna ask the panelists, I'm gonna ask folks not to accost the panelists at the end of this and let them walk out because we have to take this down in 20 minutes for a 500 person event. So I would ask you to just honor my request and let the panelists walk out and then talk to the panelists outside there. Please join me in thanking the panel.